Those who risk their lives and go out to fight, and who are prepared to lay down their lives for the cause of God are honorable people, pure of heart and blessed of soul. But the great surprise is that those among them who are killed in the struggle must not be considered or described as dead….To all intents and purposes, those people may very well appear lifeless, but life and death are not judged by superficial physical means alone…the death of those who are killed for the cause of God gives more impetus to the cause, which continue to thrive on their blood. …there is no real sense of loss in their death, for they continue to live.
There is now a jihad magazine published by Al Qaeda. Its first issue carried this exhortation:
"My Jihad-fighting brother, don't you want Paradise? Don't you want to protect yourself from Hell?… Kill the polytheist, kill the one whose blood is like the blood of a dog, kill the one whom Allah ordered you to kill and whom the Prophet of Allah [Muhammad] incited you against. Have you not seen him, whose blood is like the blood of a dog, cursing your religion and taking your sister captive? Have you not seen him, whose blood is like the blood of a dog, occupying the lands of the Muslims, controlling the land of the two holy places, and leading colonialism in Mecca and Al-Madina? The one whose blood is like the blood of a dog that ignored all the nations of the world and chose the Muslims, to make them weep and make the world laugh at them. The one whose blood is like the blood of a dog has introduced his treacherous agents to [rule] over the loyal faithful clerics…
And consider this observation:
Those who follow the rules of the Qur’an are aware that we have to kill…War is a blessing for the world and for every nation. It is Allah Himself who commands men to wage war and to kill. The Qur’an commands: ‘Wage war until all corruption and all disobedience [of divine law] are wiped out!’’
The wars that our Prophet…waged against the infidels were divine gifts to humanity. Once we have won the war [against Iraq] we shall turn to other wars. For that would not be enough. We have to wage war until all corruption, all disobedience of Islamic laws cease [throughout the world]. The Qur’an commands: ‘War, war unto victory!’ A religion without war is a crippled religion…It is war that purifies the earth….To kill the infidels is one of the noblest missions Allah has reserved for mankind.”
This was said by the Ayatollah Khomeini, on the birthday of the Prophet Muhammed.
And consider this: “We are not fighting so that the enemy recognizes us and offers us something. We are fighting to wipe out the enemy.” This was said by Hussein Mussavi, leader of the Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah.
As far as the Palestinians are concerned, it is unclear whether the mainstream elements are willing to settle for a two-state solution. By insisting on the right of some 3.7 million Palestinians to return to what is now Israel, they are in effect insisting on a two-Arab state solution. The PA’s television channels broadcast constant celebrations of martyrdom. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are not willing to settle for a two-state solution that would see Israel and Palestine living side by side. They are driven by an Islamist belief that the whole of Palestine is part of the Muslim umma, and therefore that it may not be shared with non-Muslims, unless they want to live as unequal subordinates under Muslim rule.
ISIS – originally al Qaeda in Iraq, now a force in Syria as well – has broken with al Qaeda only because it insists on creating a caliphate immediately. Otherwise the jihadist goals and methods are the same.
13. Islam and Democracy.
In principle Islam does not allow for a separation of religion and government. The function of government is to enable the individual to live as a good Muslim. In practice, separation has long been accepted, so long as the rulers claim to adhere to the religion and allow shari’a to regulate at least family law. Traditionalists are content if the law of the state recognizes Shari’a as the basis or a basis of secular law. Islamists insist on restoring the caliphate—unifying religion and state—or in the case of Shiite Iran, enabling mullahs to act as guardians of the state.
Muslims tend to be more fixated on their sacred writings and early history, and to take them as guideposts than most modern adherents of other religions.
What makes a government legitimate in the eyes of believers is its adherence to Islamic law. Conversely, those who stray from the true path are considered apostates and therefore should be rejected.
Muslims are enraptured by the word, especially the spoken word, rather than by images; they are therefore peculiarly susceptible to rhetoric in general, and especially to intoxicating political rhetoric put in religious terms.
For some Muslims, Islam requires theocracy—as in Iran and Sudan for a time.
But Islam is not necessarily supportive of dictatorship or despotism. The subject has the duty to obey but only if the ruler is legitimate and respects and enforces the Holy Law.
In principle Islam can be said to be opposed to democracy insofar as democracy means that people, not God, can make law, and that citizens can choose for themselves which if any religion they choose to adopt and which way of life they wish to pursue. It allows for consultation (shura) and some interpreters contend that this, along with its egalitarianism, makes Islam compatible with the democratic ideal.
Most Muslims believe women should be subordinate to men—by varying degrees. Men are allowed up to four wives. They can divorce easily. Talaq means a man can divorce a wife simply by saying “I divorce you” three times. In Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive. In many though not all Islamic countries, they do not have the right to vote or serve in legislatures. In Pakistan, a woman who has been raped must be stoned to death for adultery while the rapist can be punished only on the testimony of four male believers. Some changes are being made in various Muslim countries that are designed to strengthen the rights of women.
Other religions are considered wrong or transcended and potential threats to believers.
Jihad—“struggle”-- results from the perpetual conflict between Islam and the rest of the world.
Islamists take these views to an extreme, so as to require strict adherence to Shari’a and justify terrorism against apostates and infidels. Most Muslims accept the traditional practice of the religion, which is less extreme, and some champion a reform which would break with all intolerance and rigid adherence to custom.
Most Muslims accept the interpretive authority of the ulama. But Islamists often make their own interpretations. Among them now are “jihadis” who sanction the use of terrorism, including suicide bombing, against enemies and to spread the hold of their version of Islam.
Does all this mean that so long as Islam is a dominant force, there is no way the regimes in the Middle East can become democratic? Not necessarily. There is another side of the religion, which suggests a striking recognition that rulers can hardly always be counted on to perform God’s work. “The nearer a man is to government, the further he is from God.” That might be the creed of an American religious conservative, and it opens the door to greater flexibility if and when Muslims decide to imitate Christian practice. But the biggest agent of change in the region has been the influence of the West, and this has had both positive and negative effects—positive in encouraging imitation, negative in arousing opposition from traditionalists. We will see more about this when we examine the regimes and the prospects for further democratization.
In 1861, the Bey of Tunis, under British and French pressure, granted his subjects a constitution. He stopped well short of allowing for popular representation but he agreed to share power with a class of administrators. This was of course a sham constitutionalism, because the officials were all appointed by the monarch. Together they exploited the people.
Egypt followed suit. In 1868, the ruler there, Ismail, announced that Egypt would become like a European country, and that meant having a parliament. Seventy-five representatives were duly elected by the headman or village notables throughout the country. The headmen were of course appointed by the ruler. Ismail ordained that there should be two parties, one supporting the government, the other opposing, but none of the representatives wanted to take the risk of being one of the opponents so the ruler himself appointed the members of the opposition. They were putty in his hands. And when there was a military rebellion against him, they were powerless to do anything about it. So this was a sham parliament, a kind of Potemkin village democracy designed to impress the tourists.
In 1876, the Ottoman Empire, faced with a dire military threat from Russia and its Slavic allies in the Balkans, was also reorganized to give the subjects some say. The hope was that this would strengthen the country’s ability to resist. A new sultan was named who said he would rule “by the favor of the Almighty and the will of my subjects.” He proved to be a mental case and was replaced by a brother who said he would abide by the constitution. But he resisted calls for transferring power to a prime minister presiding over a cabinet that would have collective responsibility. Instead a senate and chamber of deputies were created. The senate was to be appointed by the Sultan while the lower house was to be elected by provincial and local councils—made up of people indirectly elected and hand picked by the authorities. The powers of the parliament were very limited. It could meet only when summoned by the Sultan and he could dismiss it at his pleasure. It could not initiate legislation or modify existing laws. It could vote only on bills submitted by the Sultan.
The Arab Spring of 2011 has not yet run its course. Those who champion it want democracy – accountable government that protects human rights, including religious liberty and equality for women. In the long run that goal is no more incompatible with Islam than it was with Christianity, different as they are from, each other in attitudes toward government and law.